Two campuses within the University of Wisconsin System announced Tuesday they are offering employees a voluntary retirement buyout with a one-time payout equal to 50% of an employee's annual base salary.

The buyouts at UW-Oshkosh and UW-Green Bay offer the same payout, but the eligibility requirements are different. At UW-Green Bay, the offer is being extended to all employees 55 and older who have at least five years of service. At UW-Oshkosh, employees must be at least 60 and have 25 years of service to the state to be eligible.

Tuesday's announcements bring to four the total number of campuses seeking to reduce their workforce through voluntary buyouts in the face of state budget cuts. UW-Eau Claire was the first campus to make the offer, followed last week by UW-Superior.(309)

On July 6, 2009, Jessica Weissinger, then 23, collided with a motorcycle on Highland Road in Mequon, seriously injuring that driver. She did not appear intoxicated, and was not arrested, but voluntarily gave a blood sample at a nearby hospital. It was tested a week later at a state lab and showed no alcohol. The report indicated the sample would be destroyed in six months if no one requested it be saved longer.

In August, the sample was tested again and showed a detectable amount of THC, from marijuana, a finding confirmed by second test in February 2010, and reported to prosecutors in March. The blood sample was destroyed in April. Weissinger was charged May 24.

The motorcycle driver, who was seriously injured, sued Weissinger March 25, 2010. That case ended in a settlement in May 2013. Weissinger faces a $300,000 judgment.

Weissinger, of Grafton, she was not furnished the results of the test until mid August, 2010. She argued it was unfair because she could not have the sample retested, and moved to suppress the blood test results. The trial court denied the request, and Weissinger was found guilty in 2012 causing great bodily harm by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle, having detectable level of THC in her blood. She was sentenced to five years probation and a two year revocation of her license.

But the court of appeals found that there was no violation of due process unless the potential evidence was destroyed in bad faith.

"Weissinger herself admits that the retest could only 'hopefully find that the test of the blood was not correct.' Because the evidence Weissinger sought was only 'potentially useful' rather than apparently exculpatory, she would have to show that it was destroyed in bad faith," wrote Judge Lisa Neubauer.

In a concurring opinion, Chief Judge Richard S. Brown said he reads the dissent as saying the state "blindsided" Weissinger by not charging her until the sample was destroyed.

"I agree that what the State did and the way the facts unfolded is troubling. But Weissinger did not raise bad faith as an issue, and the dissent cannot therefore use the term “bad faith” in its separate opinion."

That dissent came from Judge Paul Reilly.

"The State charged Weissinger with having something in her blood, but then destroyed the blood prior to giving Weissinger any meaningful opportunity to inspect the blood," Reilly wrote. " It is a perversion of justice that we apparently accord more due process evidentiary protection to our property than we accord to our liberty interests."

Reilly says the majority misreads a key federal ruling about the destruction of evidence, and gives too much weight to the fact Weissinger was allowed to cross examine law enforcement and lab staff about the testing and ultimate destruction of her blood sample.

"Weissinger was never arrested or taken into custody on July 6. Weissinger was never given warnings. Weissinger was never advised that she had a right (or need) to have her own test done. Weissinger was never advised that she was the subject of a criminal investigation. In short, Weissinger never had a reason to perform her own tests back in July 2009 as the State did not threaten her liberty at that time

"To deny an accused the right to a meaningful inspection of the State’s inculpatory evidence is fundamentally unfair," Reilly wrote. "I dissent."

INTERACTIVE: This interactive provides a detailed look at the current term of the U.S. Supreme Court, including summaries of major cases, profiles of the justices, and legal alignments based on past decisions.